Nintendo\’s 3rd Party Troubles Are Their Own Fault

In this two-part article, I will talk about Nintendo\’s 3rd party troubles, the source of them, and how they relate to the overall health of the industry. Please tune in tomorrow for part 2!

There is one phenomenon that, as a Nintendo fan and critic, I\’ve noticed over the past two generations: the increasing anger of Nintendo fans, directed toward 3rd party publishers. This anger is said to come from a variety of places: the lack of 3rd party support on Nintendo consoles, in which most multiplatform games skip Nintendo\’s platforms entirely; in the rare occasion that there is 3rd party support, it comes in the form of botched or downgraded ports, often missing all DLC support and being the last version to receive much needed patches; and finally, the indirect and unintended humiliation of the Nintendo fanbase from company executives and public relations employees who run off their mouth a bit more than some would like.

I want to challenge this anger. I want to tell you, the angry people, something important. Nintendo\’s 3rd party troubles are the fault of Nintendo. It\’s all on them, and no one else. But that\’s not too bad: these 3rd party troubles are symptomatic of a change that is good for Nintendo, for the industry, and for us, the gamers.

Relax, drink some warm tea with milk, and look at this picture as you fall asleep. Sweet dreams.

Why are Nintendo\’s 3rd party troubles their own fault?

Because that\’s how their business works. Specifically, this sort of situation is the direct result of the blue ocean strategy Nintendo employed with the Wii and DS systems. For those unfamiliar with the term: a company (in this case Nintendo) seeking to exit the fierce, \”red ocean\” competitive space they currently see themselves in (the violent numbers game the console space was becoming with the Playstation 2 and Xbox) can choose to establish a completely new market, by using new or innovative technology (touch screens and motion controls) to engage a previously untapped audience (the elderly, families, and female gamers, among other demographics traditionally denominated \”non-gamers\”). This blue ocean strategy is a very high risk, high reward business tactic; a successful move can bring in great fortunes, but a flawed one will cause great losses – and the tightrope is thin and unsteady.

The thing here is that, for a videogame company like Nintendo to leapfrog into what they considered a blue ocean, they had to make a system with a price tag attractive to the consumer they were trying to reach (not the dedicated enthusiast they no longer wanted to cater to), which naturally meant the system was bound to have weaker hardware in comparison to other systems actually being made to cater to traditional gamers. With this in mind, let\’s get into 3rd parties\’ shoes: should they, as businesses, invest their capital into a risky new market, re-learning to produce games for a new demographic, based on nothing but the hunch that Nintendo had? Or should they continue down the road they already know, making seemingly surefire investments on games they know how to make for an audience they know exists? After all, these 3rd parties couldn\’t simply port their existing AAA games, designed for powerful hardware, to the relatively weak and meager Wii, forcing them to make either bold, creative, and risky investments, or none at all.

Furthermore, for consumers who like those AAA games, then, buying a Wii was contradictory to their desires. Why get a Wii to play nothing but Nintendo\’s first party games, when you could get a Playstation 3 and play not only Sony\’s own first party games, but also all the multiplatform AAA games you could handle? Ditto for Microsoft. The result was that most people who were interested in multiplatform games at all, chose a system other than the Wii – which in turn strengthened 3rd parties\’ hesitations in porting their major games to the system. It was a nasty cycle, lived most vicariously in the hateful comment sections of mainstream gaming websites.

And so, it was completely logical, expected, and natural, that Nintendo\’s business decisions with the Nintendo Wii would result in the troubles they have, to this day, in attracting 3rd parties to their current-generation platforms.

Remember this? When the sky was blue and the future was bright?

OK, but that sounds awful. How\’s this good for the whole industry, again?

Because sometimes, the new big, blue ocean becomes so appealing that 3rd party publishers will throw themselves headfirst into it, willing to re-learn the business as they go. In this way, the pursuit of money and the pursuit of innovation will be one and the same, bringing great times for everyone involved – but I have to stop here, before this article spirals out of control and looks so ugly and disorganized that not even my loving mother wants to read it.

Instead, please come back tomorrow to read part two of this article, where I explain why the same source of Nintendo\’s 3rd party troubles can be the catalyst that brings innovation and health to this worrisome industry.

What a biased, unprofessional, clickbait article. To entirely blame only Nintendo is a false accusation. Sure they don't go for the 400$ powerhouse console but why should that be what keeps them from getting 3rd party support. Why is it only Nintendo fans, should they wish to play 3rd party games, that have to get a supplement system? I will tell what I think is the truth. Nintendo doesn't allow 3rd parties to dictate what their console does, something that I have been lead to believe Sony/Microsoft does, they cater to 3rd party's needs first, their own games a secondary concern. Doesn't that seem a little backwards, catering to your competition? Nintendo makes great games, no denying that, 3rd parties cannot hope to compete with these games unless they put in a lot of effort, the same amount or more that Nintendo does. I think that is the real reason 3rd party games don't come to nintendo's consoles, 3rd parties don't want to put in the extra effort. They are bitter and lazy. Nintendo start4ed this generation with a great console, trusting 3rd parties to help them along the way, and look what happened, they all abandoned the system for some slow sales. If I were Nintendo I'd never trust 3rd party companies ever again, this has been happening too long to repair damages. These 3rd parties have clearly stated in the way they treat Nintendo and its fans, that we don't mattter to them. So you saying nintendo causes their own 3rd party problems, take a look at the other side of the coin. 3rd party compnanies often give Nintendo watered down games missing features, DLC, worse graphics, etc. They don't market or support it yet they expect it to sell. Do they think we are some type of sub humans willing to take anything put in front of our faces? We are not, we are smart and know when we're getting screwed, and do not take kindly to it. 3rd parties bad sales are on them for the most part. Their decisions to gimp the game, not support DLC, multiplayer, not market the product for the current Nintendo console, etc. These decisions cause apathy toward their product. Do these companies not think that even on a family friendly centered console that there are not gamers who'd like to have played GTA V, Destiny and other mature games. We as Nintendo fans should not have to get a supplement console for 3rd party games, no one else does so why should we. It is different when a Sony/Microsoft fan buys a Nintendo product, they do so for the 1st party games. I'll use myself as an example: I have no intereset in anything that Sony/Microsoft has to offer in terms of 1st party games, if I did, I'd be like the majority of gamers and have Nintendo as a secondary console and wouldn't have to write this. This being the case why should I drop 400$ + to play 3rd paerty games, it isn't that much worth the cost. I think that Sony/Microsoft fans are ignorant of Nintendo fan's suffering, they aren't denied a thing, while we are denied nearly every 3rd party game under the sun. All I want is for fair equal treatment and respect. The only difference between the Big 3 should be 1st party games, exclusives, and hardware. They should all have equal access to 3rd party games of the same quality, no gimping or inferiority. Am I being unreasonable to ask for such a thing? I don't think so.

You just said that the article was biased and unprofessional when your 3-chapter responded was just as biased and equally unprofessional and worse- based purely on conjecture as you accused the article of being. No. I stopped reading your wall of text not even half way through. You're not making legitimate claims, as the author is. Quit whining about how 3rd parties approach their business. There have been many, MANY, professional reviews as to why nintendo is seeing less 3rd party support, and this article speaks to them.

To say its all Nintendo's fault is showing extreme tunnel vision and ignorance.
It is idiocy to have such a narrow selection of evidence on complex situation that has many many different deciding factors, then claim it as an absolute reason for everything in its entirety.

I would like to remind the author, that third party developers, despite their protests over the Wii U's power, are still bringing games like Destiny to older consoles instead of the Wii U.
Heck, Criterion, during the porting process of NfS Most Wanted, were able to get the PC port of the game running on the Wii U with, literally, "the flick of a switch.", and other developers since then, from Shin'en to Platinum to Yacht Club Games, have told us about how they haven't had any immense obstacles in developing games for the console.
There are games out there that third parties could be porting to the Wii U, en masse, but so long as they aren't ported the right way, they'll never get sales.
What third parties need to realize is that they've lost the trust of the Nintendo fanbase as far as ports goes, and that it's not something Nintendo can force their fans to reconsider, no matter how much ass Nintendo decides to kiss.
At this point, if third parties are unwilling to change how they approach the Wii U's fanbase with their ports, then it would be smarter of them to go to Nintendo and get some exclusives, and collaborations, going instead.
I think the hype surrounding Bayonetta 2 and Hyrule Warriors is enough to prove that an exclusive will always appeal more to a Nintendo fan than a watered-down port will.

That could definitely be true; most gamers complain when things actually require effort and more and more titles are trying to pander to this "cinematic" experience that has all of the flash of Hollywood films but none of the depth (Christopher Nolan they are not). I mean, just look at Bioshock Infinite; gone are the complex Plasmids, the varied weapons and ammo types, the strategic fighting, and sense of exploration and instead we have a very loooooooooooong series of shootouts with a grapple hook gimmick.

I think it's an interesting dichotomy, and I also thought of examples of AAA games with that kind of design. I've heard people say that such games are "great for vegging out in the couch after work", which really sounds like what Miyamoto's talking about.

I dont like this Article Juegos.
Nintendo's strategy with the Wii was always to get more gamers to play games and "upgrade" to more complex experiences. Wii Sports was the hook and they wanted them to go and play more games. Like their first party games for instance. This did not happen.
Lets look at the Wii U. This was a more blatant example of the strategy. They literally put Nintendo franchises in front of this audience with gameplay ideas to facilitate that + hook of the different types of gameplay that the system provided.
But that didnt happen, instead they regressed towards more and more simple experiences. Mobile gaming caters to the majority of this market. Very simple games/mechanics that people can play.
You see the market as a whole is insistent on catering to "passive". In the AAA section these are highly visual movie like games that literally play themselves. In the mobile section these are routine-esque simple farmville/angry birds type games

"Nintendo's 3rd-party troubles are their own fault". I read this article expecting a severe tongue-lashing against Nintendo for not properly catering to third-parties. But instead I read about their "blue ocean strategy" and the various rewards associated with it in contrast to the "red ocean strategy". Impressive article, and I await tomorrow's continuation.

Trackbacks

[…] own doing. The second one is something I disagree with strongly, I agree with the headline “Nintendo’s 3rd party troubles are their own fault,” which is the point of this article. But, the article talks about how the 3rd party troubles […]